09 September 2009

the remains of a party

in the summer of 1948, the chair of the republic national committee, congressman carroll reece of tennessee, claimed that "there remained nothing of the democratic party but three distasteful elements: southern racists, big-city bosses, and radicals bent on 'sovietizing' the country".

in listening to the president speak tonight about healthcare reform, complete with numbers, statistics, and an inspirational kick,"that we aren't here to fear the future, we are here to shape it", i felt a surge of my own american pride. especially when he handed an
opposition-sans-a-solution its ass on a silver platter.

which brings me to the three distasteful elements of what little remains of the republican party today: racists, rich white men, and radicals bent on jesusizing the country.



  1. Serious question. Do you accept everything Obama says uncritically and without any independent analysis?

    It doesn't take much investigation to find reasons to be justifiably skeptical.

    For example, here, less than a month ago, Obama says that "nearly 46 million Americans don't have health coverage."


    Tonight, he says "there are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."


    I guess the first question I had was what happened to those 16 million people. I won't bore you with more facts and details, but a 46 million or 30 million figure is questionable in the first instance given the counting methodology.

    Then there are other elements of his statements that don't really add up.


    Note, the preceding article was generated fairly quickly after his speech, and doesn't even contain a robust analysis of many of the claims that have been made.

    In analyzing what has been proposed in concept (that's the best we've been given), and checking the assertions against objective verifiable evidence, I'm finding a lot of issues between the representations and the facts.

    Look, regardless of where you come out on the health care debate, don't you think it's a good idea - in general - to check the statements of an elected official?

    I understand you support Obama, but at some point the rhetoric has to hit the road, and facts matter. There's a reason why public opinion is shifting against him on this issue, and it's not because of "right wing radio," but more because you can't go on heaving platitudes, making questionable assertions and speaking in generalities about a major proposal without specific details and maintain credibility and support at the same time.

    Maybe I'm paranoid, but I live by the motto of "trust no one."

  2. Anonymous, perhaps if you reread your own comment you'll see the problem. 45 million "don't have" and 30 million "can't get." Even a child can see the difference between those descriptions.

  3. There is a bigger problem with Anony's comments.
    The reason why "public opinion is shifting" from the President's position is because for the entire freaking month of August he ceded the field to the wingnuts on the right. They got a lot of press and succeeded in sounding scary -- but of course everything they said were lies, e.g., "death panels."

    The President is not in Congress and he recognizes that the Hill is where the real work lies. Tonight he laid out first principles and reminded the public why this matters. As such, it was a masterful speech. Now it is time to end the debate, cull those who will not help this to move forward, and let's get this passed.

    Oh and Anony... were you likewise critical of the gap between what the former Prez said and reality? Didn't think so. Cheers... jpj